If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry: Denied the Right to Vote

I was denied my right to vote today. I refused to remove my lawfully carried firearm in order to vote..

A memo was sent out by the Alabama Sheriff's Association stating that Probate Judges should post these notices in accordance with 13A-11-61.2(6)(C) Code of Alabama.

The Alabama Sheriffs Association is not an official office of the State of Alabama..

I have been in contact with the Secretary of States Office and spoke with Kim Melton. No results other than they were having a meeting concerning the issue. (This could have been said to appease me)

This is the section of the law that the ASA referred too..

Section 13A-11-61.2

(6) Possession of firearms in certain places.(6) Inside any facility hosting a professional athletic event not related to or involving firearms, unless the person has a permit issued under Section 13A-11-75(a)(1) or recognized under Section 13A-11-85.

(c) The person or entity with authority over the premises set forth in subsections (a)(1)-(6) and subsection (b) shall place a notice at the public entrances of such premises or buildings alerting those entering that firearms are prohibited.

The police does not control polling places .. election judges do ... where are the judges?

A call was placed to the Shelby County Alabama Probate Office...
I believe that was refered to in the newspaper article that was provided in the original post...

In the second news article it cited the Facebook post below..

Chambers County Alabama Sheriff's Department
12 hours ago
After receiving a couple complaints about the firearm prohibition at polling places, Sheriff Sid Lockhart and Judge Brandy Clark Easlick met and reviewed the source. A memo was sent out by the Alabama Sheriff's Association stating that Probate Judges should post these notices in accordance with 13A-11-61.2(6)(C) Code of Alabama. After reviewing this statute, Sheriff Lockhart and Judge Easlick were in agreement that this statute did not apply to polling places. They have ordered that the signs and restrictions be removed. However, voters are reminded that no weapons are allowed in the Courthouse or schools. We apologize for any inconvenience that may have caused.he other article the Chambers County Sheriff and the Probabte Judge came to a diffrent decision. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chamb...05223466220582

The United States Federal Code has NO Prohibitions Concerning Firearms in Voting Booths either.

Additionally, neither The Sheriff nor The Judge has any Authority to Ban Firearms from Voting Booths due to Alabama Code 13A-11-61.3.

aadvark

They have no authority under the state constitution, section 26.

Originally Posted by davidmcbeth

I would have told them to piss off ... and gone in and voted.

There is video of it; he was denied entry by deputies and a police officer simultaneously.

Attempting to move through those officers -- basically barricading the doors with themselves -- could be seen/deemed an assault on an officer, at which point they would use force to effect an arrest. That is how elbows get broken and cases lost. OTOH, bodily injury would fulfill 18 USC 242 at the misdemeanor level. They clearly did not have the authority to prevent this man from voting and under color of law, prevented the exercise of a right.

It is my opinion that the Alabama Sheriff's Association, the sheriff, his deputies, and or all the sheriffs who are members of the association (which is itself a taxpayer-funded lobbyist) should be investigated for Conspiracy Against Rights -- 18 USC 241.

Voting is very basic to our republic .. anyone unlawfully not allowing you to enter a polling booth w/o good cause ? Expect Americans to react appropriately.

Nowadays? Doubtful a single person denied the right to vote because they were open carrying and couldn't go into a gun free zone would even make the news at all. No one cares. If people actually cared they would know there is no such thing as a gun free zone in the first place. Not when it comes to public places.

"Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

"Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

There are no firearms prohibitions peculiar to Wisconsin polling places, but only those general prohibitions for openly carried arms and concealed arms.

An assertion of non-existence cannot be sustained without examination of the entire universe under discussion, here Wisconsin statutes.

There are however federal laws which have been openly defied and ignored for years that nullify practically all firearms restrictions including the need for licences.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491)

There was another quote I've used that explicitly stated unconstitutional laws do not have to be obeyed and aren't in fact laws at all. For some reason I can't find it again despite quoting it here before

There are however federal laws which have been openly defied and ignored for years that nullify practically all firearms restrictions including the need for licences.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491)

There was another quote I've used that explicitly stated unconstitutional laws do not have to be obeyed and aren't in fact laws at all. For some reason I can't find it again despite quoting it here before

Those citations are not to laws but to decisions/opinions that are certainly mature enough to be codified in law.

But therein lies the problem. There can be no valid ruling contrary to the Constitution. If there could be then you may as well go the whole hog and say the Constitution is little more than a guideline and you can ignore it whenever. Furthermore Article 6 clearly states the Constitution is supreme, above any other law. Finally these rulings set precedents so that in future cases others actually have a leg to stand on.

This is the basis for me and others bemoaning the failures of We the People to stand up for what was and is our undeniable and unquestionable rights under the Constitution of the United States and my assertion that these rights should always be defended. We don't and we'll end up like Europe and I can tell you first hand the results of that in the U.K as I lived there most of my life.

"Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

"Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

Here is the text of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice that the Supremacy Clause presumes that "the Laws of the United States [] shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

Here is the text of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice that the Supremacy Clause presumes that "the Laws of the United States [] shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

people used a little bit of common sense back then, If you used the words 'shall not' in any other context no one would argue. Soon as you start talking about gun rights people start umm-ing and aah-ing and pulling all sorts of linguistics trying to wriggle out of the simple command that there cannot be any restrictions on the bearing of arms.

This nullifies any and all laws which violate a citizens right to bear arms including licenses, magazine restrictions, location restrictions (private property exempted) and assault weapons 'bans'. In fact I would go further to say any police officer or judge that upholds such restrictions is in violation of their oath to the Constitution.

"Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

"Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

With some small respect, you must learn the difference between IS and OUGHT. The COTUS IS not law, but merely guidance to the judiciary. It OUGHT to be a law; a la "There oughta be a law!"

Thats the fault of the People. We are suffering because of inaction or the wrong action. We must make the government at every level listen and must make them aware unless they want to lose power and/or be prosecuted they must obey the Constitution

"Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

"Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"